[Download] Tải An empirical examination of liquidity risk management with special reference to Vijaya bank – Tải về File Word, PDF

An empirical examination of liquidity risk management with special reference to Vijaya bank

An empirical examination of liquidity risk management with special reference to Vijaya bank
Nội dung Text: An empirical examination of liquidity risk management with special reference to Vijaya bank

Download


Liquidity is a matter of cash flow as they pass through the balance sheet and income statement on continues basis. Liquidity risk present when, for whatever reason, this flow is endangered, if there is a demand for cash, particularly if it comes from outside the organization, it must be satisfied.

Bạn đang xem: [Download] Tải An empirical examination of liquidity risk management with special reference to Vijaya bank – Tải về File Word, PDF

*Ghi chú: Có 2 link để tải biểu mẫu, Nếu Link này không download được, các bạn kéo xuống dưới cùng, dùng link 2 để tải tài liệu về máy nhé!
Download tài liệu An empirical examination of liquidity risk management with special reference to Vijaya bank File Word, PDF về máy

An empirical examination of liquidity risk management with special reference to Vijaya bank

Mô tả tài liệu

Nội dung Text: An empirical examination of liquidity risk management with special reference to Vijaya bank

  1. International Journal of Management (IJM)
    Volume 6, Issue 11, Nov 2015, pp. 01-18, Article ID: IJM_06_11_001
    Available online at
    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=6&IType=11
    ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510
    © IAEME Publication
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF
    LIQUIDITY RISK MANAGEMENT WITH
    SPECIAL REFERENCE TO VIJAYA BANK
    Dr. Shivakumar Deene
    Assistant Professor of Commerce, Central University of Karnataka
    Kadaganchi, Aland Road, Gulbarga-585311, Karnataka, India
    Key words: Risk Management, Vijaya Bank and Liquidity
    Cite this Article: Dr. Shivakumar Deene. An Empirical Examination of
    Liquidity Risk Management with Special Reference to Vijaya Bank.
    International Journal of Management, 6(11), 2015, pp. 01-18.
    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=6&IType=11

    1. INTRODUCTION
    Liquidity is a matter of cash flow as they pass through the balance sheet and income
    statement on continues basis. Liquidity risk present when, for whatever reason, this
    flow is endangered, if there is a demand for cash, particularly if it comes from outside
    the organization, it must be satisfied. The objective of liquidity risk management is to
    understand how cash flows are moving within an organization, to identify the
    existence and location of cash flow strains by measuring liquidity pressures, and to
    take corrective actions to prevent these pressures from growing liquidity needs
    (Taylor, 2001).
    Liquidity needs usually determined by the construction of a maturity ladder that
    comprises accepted cash flow over a series of specified time periods. The difference
    between the inflows and outflows in each period (i.e., the excess or deficit of funds) is
    a starting point to measure a banks future liquidity access or shortfall at any given
    time. Once liquidity needs had been determined, a bank must decide how to fulfil
    them. Liquidity management is related to net funding requirement, and in principle a
    bank may increase the liquidity through asset management, liability management, but
    most frequently a combination of both.
    Liquidity risk refers to the risk of maturing liabilities not finding enough maturing
    assets to meet these liabilities. In other words, it is the potential inability to meet the
    banks liabilities as they become due. This arises because bank borrows funds for
    different maturities in the form of deposits; market operations etc., and lock them in to
    assets of different maturities. Liquidity gap also arises due to unpred ictability of
    deposit withdrawals, changes in loan demands etc. Hence measuring and managing
    liquidity needs a vital for effective and viable operation of the bank.

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1 editor@iaeme.com

  2. Dr. Shivakumar Deene

    Liquidity measurement is quite difficult task and usually the stock or cash flow
    approaches are used for its measurement. The stock approach uses certain liquidity
    ratios. While the liquidity ratio is the ideal indicator of liquidity of banks operating in
    developed financial markets, the ratios do not reveal the real liquidity profile of the
    banks which are operating generally in a fairly illiquid market. The assets which are
    commonly considered as liquid like Government securities have limited liquidity
    when the market and players move in one direction. Thus analysis of liquidity
    involves tracking of cash flows mismatches.
    The measuring and managing of net funding requirements call for the construction
    of maturity ladder. Reserve Bank of India in its circular dated February 10, 1999
    issued the guidelines on ALM system and has suggested the time buckets for
    measuring the cash flow of the banks. The statement of structural liquidity may be
    prepared by placing all the cash inflows and outflows in the maturity ladder according
    to the expected timing of cash flows. A maturing liability will be a cash outflow while
    a maturing asset will be a cash inflow. The maturity profile could be used for
    measuring the future cash flows in different time bonds.
    In the present study, the balance sheet data from 2009-10 to 2013-14 were taken
    for the analysis. The statement of structural liquidity is prepared by placing all cash
    inflows and outflows in the maturity ladder to the expected timing of cash flow. The
    time buckets for measuring the future cash flows of the banks are:
    1. 1 Day
    2. 2 Days to 7 Days.
    3. 8 Days to 14 Days.
    4. 15 Days to 28 Days.
    5. 29 Days to 3 Months
    6. 3 Months to 6 Months
    7. 6 Months to 12 Months
    8. 1 Year to 3 Years
    9. 3 Years to 5 years
    10. Over 5 Years
    The guidelines have been reviewed by RBI on September 5, 2007 and accepting
    the need for a sharper assessment of the efficiency of liquidity management, it is
    suggested that the bank may adopt a more granular approach to measurement of
    liquidity risk by splitting the first time bucket (1-14 days at present) in the statement
    of structural liquidity into three time buckets viz., next day, 2-7 days and 8-14 days
    with effect from April 1, 2008.

    2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:
    It seeks to examine how Asset-Liability Management can be used as an important tool
    & technique to improve net interest income/interest spread by managing mark et risks
    i.e., liquidity risk and to draw the conclusions stemming from the study so as to
    manage the liquidity of the bank effectively and efficiently.

    3. METHODOLOGY
    The present study is an analytical and empirical presentation of research and as such it
    relies on published data and opinions of top management team of the bank with regard
    to asset liability management practices, its corporate governance practices and

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 2 editor@iaeme.com

  3. An Empirical Examination of Liquidity Risk Management with Special Reference to Vijaya
    Bank

    regulatory provisions prescribed by RBI. Therefore, the present study uses primary
    data and secondary data in the analysis of the topic.

    4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
    The present study is confined to the Vijaya Bank only.

    5. TIME SPAN
    For the effective examination of Asset Liability Management policies, practices and
    systems in Vijaya Bank, the data for a period of nine years starting from 2010 to 14 is
    utilized for the purpose of the present study.Further the period of the study is also
    influenced by availability of data in few cases.

    6. TOOLS & TECHNIQUES OF ANALYSIS
    For the effective examination of Asset Liability Management in Banking sector,
    various techniques such as trend analysis using various ratios, are being employed

    7. LIQUIDITY RISK ANALYSIS OF THE SAMPLE UNIT
    Measuring and managing liquidity is an important dimension of Asset and Liability
    Management. Mismatch in the maturity profile of assets and liabilities exposes the
    balance sheet to liquidity risk. As per the RBI guidelines, while the mismatches up to
    one year would be relevant since these provided early warning signals, the ma in focus
    should be on the short-term mismatches i.e. 1 to14 days and 15 to 28 days. Banks are
    expected to monitor their cumulative mismatches across all time buckets by
    establishing internal prudential limits with the approval of the Board/Management
    Committee.
    Table-1 presents liquidity position of the bank using the stock approach. Table-2
    to 10 gives the maturity pattern of assets and liabilities in various time buckets of the
    bank for a period of 5 years starting from March 2010 to March 2014. Table 11 and
    12 presents Liquidity risk assessment of the bank during the period of the study.

    8. LIQUIDITY
    Liquidity is very important for any organization dealing with money. Banks have to
    take proper care in hedging liquidity risk while at the same time ensuring that a good
    percentage of funds are invested in higher return generating investments, so that
    banks can generate profit while at the same time provide liquidity to the depositors.
    Among the bank’s assets, cash investments are the most liquid. The ratios suggested
    to measure liquidity under CAMEL Model are as follows.
    1. Cash to Total Assets: Liquid assets include cash in hand, balance with the
    RBI, balance with other banks (both in India and abroad) and money at call and short
    notice. Total assets include the revaluation of all the assets. The portion of liquid/cash
    assets to total assets indicates the overall liquidity position of the bank.
    2. Governme nt Securities to Total Assets: Government securities are the most
    liquid and safe investments. This ratio measures the Govt. Securities as a portion of
    total assets. Banks invest in government securities primarily to meet their SLR
    requirements, which are around 25% of net demand and time liabilities. The ratio
    measures the risk involved in the assets held by a bank.
    3. Total Investments to Total Assets: It is proposed to measure the Total
    investments to total assets which signify the treasury income to the bank.

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 3 editor@iaeme.com

  4. Dr. Shivakumar Deene

    Table 1 Analysis of Liquidity (In Ratios)

    March March March March March
    Particular
    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
    Government Securities to
    25.46 22.37 24.74 25.55 24.21
    Total Assets
    Cash to Total Assets 5.83 5.97 4.74 3.84 4.03
    Total Investments to Total
    30.05 30.74 29.91 30.67 30.00
    Assets
    Source: Annual Reports
    The Table No.1 presents the analysis of liquidity of the bank measured by the
    stock approach using liquidity ratios during the period of the study. The analysis is
    carried out by taking in to consideration of Government Securities to Total Assets,
    Cash to Total Assets and Total investments to Total Assets Ratios.
    The Government Securities to Total Assets which was 25.46 in 2010 decreased to
    24.21 in 2014 simultaneously Cash to Total Assets also decreased to 4.03 in 2014
    from 5.83 in 2010.
    The Total investments to Total Assets which were 30.05 in 2010 started declining
    and declined to 24.70 in 2014.
    It can be concluded from the above analysis that the liquidity position of the bank
    is deteriorating during the period of the study.
    70

    60

    50

    40
    Ratios

    30

    20

    10

    0
    Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14
    Years

    Total Investments to Total Assets Cash to Total Assets Government Securities to Total Assets

    Graph 1 Analysis of Liquidity

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 4 editor@iaeme.com

  5. An Empirical Examination of Liquidity Risk Management with Special Reference to Vijaya
    Bank

    Table 2 Liquidity risk profile statement as on 31-03-2010 (Rs. In Crores)

    Cumulative Gap As
    Risk Risk Cumulative
    Maturity Liquidity Gap As a RBI a % of
    Sensitive Sensitive Liquidity
    patterns Gap % of Limit Total
    Assets Liabilities Gap
    Outflow Assets
    1 Day 1326.58 270.41 1056.17 1056.17 390.58 20% 1.17
    2 to 7 Days 319.34 1155.35 -836.01 -220.16 -19.05 20% -.92
    8 to 14
    583.01 2373.81 -1790.8 -2010.96 -75.77 20% -1.98
    Days
    15 to 28
    693.23 2,654.05 -1,960.82 -3971.78 -149.65 20% -2.17
    Days
    29 Days to
    2,621.51 7,188.77 -4,567.26 -8,539.04 -118.78 20% -5.06
    3 Months
    Over 3 to 6
    2,202.72 9,977.93 -7,775.21 -16,314.25 -163.50 20% -8.61
    Months
    Over 6
    Months to 1 2,713.85 17,600.11 -14,886.26 -31,200.5 -177.27 30% -16.48
    Year
    1 to 3 years 25,306.89 20,355.91 4,950.98 -26,249.52 -128.95 Internal 5.48
    3 to 5 years 16,243.82 800.29 15,443.53 -10,805.99 -1350.26 Prudentia 17.10
    l Limits
    Over 5 yrs. 38,301.7 1,803.19 36,498.51 26,132.7 1,424.84 of the 40.41
    Bank
    Total 90,312.65 64,179.95
    Source: Annual Reports
    The analysis of liquidity profile and summary of cash flow, maturity match is
    carried out by identifying the liquidity gap which is the difference between Risk
    Sensitive Assets and Risk Sensitive Liabilities and cumulative liquidity gap in various
    time buckets. Then the comparison is made for the cumulative gap as a percentage of
    out flow with RBI limits and also calculating the gap as a percentage of total assets.
    The matches up to one year have been considered for analysis as it would be relevant
    since it provide early warning signals of impending liquidity problems. Any
    mismatches in the long-term buckets could be adjusted through appropriate program
    of resource mobilization to tide over the liquidity problems.
    The table: 2 presents liquidity risk profile of the bank as on March 03,2010.
    The liquidity gap which is a positive Rs. 1056.17 crores in 1 day time bucket. The
    cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes 390.58% of outflows, against the RBI
    norms of a negative 20 %, is indicating the excess liquidity of the bank. The gap as a
    percentage of total assets is 1.17 % which indicates effective liquidity management
    practices at the bank.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative 836.01 crores in 2 to 7 days time buckets.
    The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes 19.05 % of outflows, against the RBI
    norms of a negative 20%, is indicating liquidity shortage. The gap as a percentage of
    total assets is a negative .92%, which indicates fine tuning of liquidity risk
    management in this time bucket.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative 1790.8 crores in 8 to 14 days time buckets.
    The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes 75.77 % of outflows, against the RBI
    norms of a negative 20%, is indicating a liquidity shortage of the bank during the said

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 5 editor@iaeme.com

  6. Dr. Shivakumar Deene

    time buckets. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 1.98 %, which
    indicates the sign of a liquidity risk of a bank.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative 1960.82 corores in 15 to 28 days time
    buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes 149.65% of outflows, against
    the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the high liquidity shortage of the bank.
    The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 2.17%, which indicates a
    continuous increase in the banks liquidity shortages.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative 4567.26 crores in 29 to 3 months time
    buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes 118.78% of outflows, against
    the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is again indicating liquidity shortages of the bank
    concerned. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 5.06 %, which
    indicates a continuous increase in the banks liquidity shortages.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative 7775.21 crores in 3 to 6 months time
    buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes 163.50% of outflows, against
    the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating liquidity shortages of the bank. The
    gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 8.61 %, which indicates very high
    liquidity shortages of the bank.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative 14886.26 crores in 6 months to 1 year time
    buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes 177.77% of outflows, against
    the RBI norms of a negative 30%, is indicating liquidity shortage of the bank. The gap
    as a percentage of total assets is a negative 16.48 %, which shows an abnormal
    liquidity gap of the bank during the period.
    It can be concluded that the liquidity profile of the bank as on 31.03.2010
    highlights the serious liquidity problems. Cumulative gap as a percentage of outflows
    as measured are over and above RBI limit prescribed, it means the bank has serious
    liquidity shortages.
    50000
    40000
    30000
    20000
    Rs. in Crores

    10000
    0
    -10000
    -20000
    -30000
    -40000 29 Days Over 6
    2 to 7 8 to 14 15 to 28 Over 3 to 1 to 3 3 to 5 Over 5
    1 Day to 3 Months
    Days Days Days 6 Months years years yrs.
    Months to 1 Year
    Risk Sensitive Assets 1326.58 319.34 583.01 693.23 2,621.51 2,202.72 2,713.85 25,306.89 16,243.82 38,301.70
    Risk Sensitive Liabilities 270.41 1155.35 2373.81 2,654.05 7,188.77 9,977.93 17,600.11 20,355.91 800.29 1,803.19
    Liquidity Gap 1056.17 -836.01 -1790.8 -1,960.82 -4,567.26 -7,775.21 -14,886.26 4,950.98 15,443.53 36,498.51
    Cumulative Liquidity Gap 1056.17 -220.16 -2010.96 -3971.78 -8,539.04 -16,314.25 -31,200.50 -26,249.52 -10,805.99 26,132.70

    Maturity Patterns

    Risk Sensitive Assets Risk Sensitive Liabilities Liquidity Gap Cumulative Liquidity Gap

    Graph 2 Liquidity risk profile statement as on 31-03-2010

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 6 editor@iaeme.com

  7. An Empirical Examination of Liquidity Risk Management with Special Reference to Vijaya
    Bank

    Table 3 Liquidity risk profile statement as on 31-03-2011 (Rs. In crores)

    Gap
    Cumulative
    Risk Risk Cumulative As a
    Maturity Liquidity Gap As a RBI
    Sensitive Sensitive Liquidity % of
    patterns Gap % of Limit
    Assets Liabilities Gap Total
    Outflow
    Assets
    1 Day 413.16 734.70 -321.54 -321.54 -43.76 20% -0.37
    2-7 Days 1393.22 3441.91 -2048.69 -2370.23 -68.86 20% -2.36
    8-14 Days 398.87 3172.03 -2773.16 -5143.39 -162.15 20% -3.20
    15 to 28
    767.91 4,755.16 -3,987.25 -9,140.92 -192.23 20% -4.60
    Days
    29 Days
    to 3 3,274.81 14,262.09 -10,987.28 -20,128.2 -141.13 20% -12.67
    Months
    Over 3 to
    2,541.66 2,109.02 432.64 -19,695.51 -933.87 20% 0.49
    6 Months
    Over 6
    Months to 4,840.23 13,756.22 -8,915.99 -28,611.5 -207.99 30% -10.28
    1 Yr
    1 to 3
    30,103.29 24,364.17 5,738.72 -22,872.78 -93.87 6.62
    years Internal
    3 to 5 Prudential
    24,445.48 822.31 23,623.17 750.39 91.25 27.25
    years Limits of
    Over 5 the Bank
    18,480.54 1,714.51 16,766.03 17,516.42 1021.66 19.35
    years
    Total 86,659.17 69,439.4
    Source: Annual Reports
    The table: 3 presents liquidity risk profile of the bank as on March 31, 2011.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 321.54 crores in 1 day time bucket. The
    cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 43.76 % of outflows, against
    the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the liquidity risk faced by the bank.
    The gap as a percentage of total assets is negative 0.37 % which indicates the need for
    effective risk management by the bank.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs.2370.23 crores in 2-7 days time bucket.
    The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes negative 68.86% of outflows, against
    the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the excess risk encountered by the
    bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is negative 2.36% which indicates the
    need for policy decisions for effective risk management techniques.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 5143.39 crores in 8-14 days time bucket.
    The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes negative 162.15% of outflows,
    against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the high liquidity risk of a
    bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is negative 3.20% which indicates that
    the bank has to do something to manage the risk which is going beyond the control of
    the.
    The liquidity gap which is negative Rs.9140.92 crores in 15-28 days time bucket.
    The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes negative 192.23% of outflows,
    against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the abnormal risk faced by the

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 7 editor@iaeme.com

  8. Dr. Shivakumar Deene

    bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is negative 4.60% which indicates that
    the bank has got very high risk profile.
    The liquidity gap which is negative Rs.20128.2 crores in 29 days to 3 months time
    bucket. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes negative 141.13 %, against
    the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the one more abnormal risk faced by
    the bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is negative 12.67% which indicates
    that the bank has met the ever high liquidity risk.
    The liquidity gap which is negative Rs.19695.51 crores in 3 months to 6 months
    time bucket. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes negative 933.87 % of
    outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the liquidity
    shortages of the bank during the period. The gap as a percentage of total assets is 0.49
    which indicates the improvement of efficiency in managing the liquidity risk in this
    time bucket.
    The liquidity gap which is negative 28611.5 crores in 6 months to 1 year time
    bucket. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 207.99 % of
    outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 30%, is indicating the high liquidity
    shortages of the bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is negative 10.28 %
    which fine tuning of liquidity risk management in this time bucket.
    It can be concluded that the liquidity profile of the bank as on 31.03.2011
    highlights the serious liquidity problems. Cumulative gap as a percentage of outflows
    as measured is over and above RBI limit prescribed, it means the bank has serious
    liquidity shortage.
    40000

    30000

    20000

    10000
    Rs. in Crores

    0

    -10000

    -20000

    -30000

    -40000 29 Days Over 6
    8-14 15 to 28 Over 3 to 1 to 3 3 to 5 Over 5
    1 Day 2-7 Days to 3 Months
    Days Days 6 Months years years years
    Months to 1 Yr
    Risk Sensitive Assets 413.16 1393.22 398.87 767.91 3,274.81 2,541.66 4,840.23 30,103.29 24,445.48 18,480.54
    Risk Sensitive Liabilities 734.7 3441.91 3172.03 4,755.16 14,262.09 2,109.02 13,756.22 24,364.17 822.31 1,714.51
    Liquidity Gap -321.54 -2048.69 -2773.16 -3,987.25 -10,987.28 432.64 -8,915.99 5,738.72 23,623.17 16,766.03
    Cumulative Liquidity Gap -321.54 -2370.23 -5143.39 -9,140.92 -20,128.20 -19,695.51 -28,611.50 -22,872.78 750.39 17,516.42

    Maturity Patterns
    Risk Sensitive Assets Risk Sensitive Liabilities Liquidity Gap Cumulative Liquidity Gap

    Graph 3 Liquidity risk profile statement as on 31-03-2011

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 8 editor@iaeme.com

  9. An Empirical Examination of Liquidity Risk Management with Special Reference to Vijaya
    Bank

    Table 4 Liquidity risk profile statement as on 31-03-2012 (Rs. In crores)

    Gap
    Cumulative
    Risk Risk Cumulative As a
    Maturity Liquidity Gap As a RBI
    Sensitive Sensitive Liquidity % of
    patterns Gap % of Limit
    Assets Liabilities Gap Total
    Outflow
    Assets
    1 Day 555.65 918.53 -362.88 -362.88 -68.90 20% -.41
    2 to 7
    977.77 6622.87 -5645.1 -6007.98 -90.71 20% -6.47
    Days
    8 to 14
    402.55 1516.66 -1114.11 -7122.09 -469.59 20% -1.28
    Days
    15 to 28
    783.89 3,033.35 -2,249.46 -9,371.55 -308.9 20% -2.58
    Days
    29 Days
    to 3 3,821 11,604.18 -7,783.18 -17,154.73 -147.8 20% -8.92
    Months
    Over 3 to
    2,922.19 6,663.24 -3,741.05 -20,895.78 -313.60 20% -4.29
    6 Months
    Over 6
    Months to 4,423.9 29,820.76 -25,396.86 -46292.64 -155.23 30% -29.11
    1 Year
    1 to 3
    38,171.09 9,688.05 28,483.04 -17,809.6 -183.83 32.64
    years Internal
    3 to 5 Prudential
    13,498.75 18,031.24 -4,532.49 -22,342.09 -123.91 -5.19
    years Limits of
    Over 5 the Bank
    21,762.01 1,281.13 20,480.88 -1,861.21 -145.28 23.47
    years
    Total 87,253.46 89,179.83
    Source: Annual Reports
    The Table No.4 presents liquidity risk profile of the bank as on March 31, 2012.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs.362.88 crores in 1 day time bucket. The
    cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 68.90 % of outflows, against
    the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the bank ’s liquidity shortage. The gap
    as a percentage of total assets is a negative .41 % which indicates the need for
    effective risk management by the bank concerned.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 5645.1 crores in 2 to 7 days time bucket.
    The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 90.71% of outflows,
    against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the high liquidity shortage of
    the bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 6.47% which indicates
    the need for fine tuning of the liquidity risk management strategies.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs.1114.11in 8 to 14 days time bucket. The
    cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 469.59% of outflo ws, against
    the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the liquidity shortage of the bank. The
    gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 1.28% which indicates that the bank
    has to adopt the very good strategies for the purpose of controlling the liquidity risk of
    the bank.

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 9 editor@iaeme.com

  10. Dr. Shivakumar Deene

    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs.2249.46 crores in 15 to 28 days time
    bucket. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 308.9 % of
    outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the high liquidity
    shortages of the bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 2.58 %
    which draws the high risk zone for the bank.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 7783.18 crores in 29 days to 3 months.
    The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 147.8% of outflows,
    against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the high liquidity shortages of
    the Vijaya Bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 8.92 % which
    pinpoints that the Vijaya Bank has entered into a very high liquidity shortage during
    the period.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 3741.05 crores in over 3 months to 6
    months time bucket. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative
    313.60 % of outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating a high
    liquidity shortage of the bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative
    4.29 % which indicates the need for effective risk management techniques.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs.25396.86 crores in over 6 months to 1
    year time buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 155.23
    % of outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 30%, is indicating the liquidity
    shortage of the bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 29.11%
    which indicates the need for effective control of liquidity shortage suffered by the
    bank.
    It can be concluded that the liquidity profile of the bank as on 31.03.2012
    highlights the serious liquidity problems. Cumulative gap as a percentage as outflows
    as measured is over and above RBI Limit Prescribed, it means the bank has serious
    liquidity shortages.
    50000
    40000
    30000
    20000
    10000
    Rs. in Crores

    0
    -10000
    -20000
    -30000
    -40000
    -50000
    -60000 29 Days Over 3 Over 6
    2 to 7 8 to 14 15 to 28 1 to 3 3 to 5 Over 5
    1 Day to 3 to 6 Months
    Days Days Days years years years
    Months Months to 1 Year
    Risk Sensitive Assets 555.65 977.77 402.55 783.89 3,821 2,922.19 4,423.90 38,171.09 13,498.75 21,762.01
    Risk Sensitive Liabilities 918.53 6622.87 1516.66 3,033.35 11,604.18 6,663.24 29,820.76 9,688.05 18,031.24 1,281.13
    Liquidity Gap -362.88 -5645.1 -1114.11 -2,249.46 -7,783.18 -3,741.05 -25,396.86 28,483.04 -4,532.49 20,480.88
    Cumulative Liquidity Gap -362.88 -6007.98 -7122.09 -9,371.55 -17,154.73 -20,895.78 -46292.64 -17,809.60 -22,342.09 -1,861.21

    Maturity Patterns
    Risk Sensitive Assets Risk Sensitive Liabilities Liquidity Gap Cumulative Liquidity Gap

    Graph 4 Liquidity risk profile statement as on 31-03-2012

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 10 editor@iaeme.com

  11. An Empirical Examination of Liquidity Risk Management with Special Reference to Vijaya
    Bank

    Table 5 Liquidity risk profile statement as on 31-03-2013

    Gap
    Cumulative
    Risk Risk Cumulative As a
    Maturity Liquidity Gap As a RBI
    Sensitive Sensitive Liquidity % of
    patterns Gap % of Limit
    Assets Liabilities Gap Total
    Outflow
    Assets
    1 Day 470.06 1070.27 -600.21 -600.21 -56.08 20% -0.59
    2 to 7 Days 560.03 8163.12 -7603.09 -8203.3 -100.49 20% -7.48
    8 to 14
    450.25 1856.94 -1406.69 -9609.99 -517.52 20% -1.38
    Days
    15 to28
    1,007.81 2,456.53 -1,448.68 -11,058.67 -450.17 20% -1.42
    Days
    29 Days to
    3,952.47 20,515.52 -16,923.05 -27,981.72 -136.39 20% -16.65
    3 Months
    Over 3 to 6
    3,681.31 9,334.54 -5,653.23 -33,634.95 -360.33 20% -5.56
    Months
    Over 6
    Months to 5,215.05 31,820.05 -26,605 -60,239.95 -189.31 30% -26.18
    1 Year
    1 to 3 years 47,720.1 7,386.31 40,333.79 -19,906.16 -269.50 Internal 39.69
    3 to 5 years 15,567.66 20,195.23 -4,627.57 -24,533.73 -121.48 Prudential -14.39
    Over 5 Limits of
    23,343.94 1,168.25 22,175.69 -2358.04 -201.84 the Bank 21.82
    years
    Total 1,01,608.72 1,03,966.76
    Source: Annual Reports
    The Table No.5 presents liquidity risk profile of the bank a s on March 31, 2013.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 600.21 croores in 1 day time bucket. The
    cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes negative 56.08% of outflows, against the
    RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating liquidity shortages of the bank. The gap as
    a percentage of total assets is negative 0.59% which indicates the requirement of the
    effective liquidity control strategies.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs.7603.09 crores in 2-7 days time buckets.
    The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes negative 100.49% of outflows,
    against the RBI norms of a negative 20% indicates a further deterioration of the
    liquidity of the bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 7.48 %
    which again highlights the liquidity problems faced by the bank during the period.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 1406.69 crores in 8-14 days time
    buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 517.52% of
    outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 20% pinpoints the excessive liquidity
    problems face by the Vijaya Bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a
    negative 1.38% which indicates the improvement in the liquidity shortage of the bank
    compared to very previous time bucket.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 1448.68 crores in 15-28 days time
    buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative of 450.17% of
    outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicates the need to improve
    the liquidity structure of the bank for its effective survival. The gap as a percentage of

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 11 editor@iaeme.com

  12. Dr. Shivakumar Deene

    total assets is a negative 1.42% which indicates the slight increase in the liquidity
    shortages of the bank compared to very previous time bucket.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 16923.05 crores in 29 days – 3 months
    time buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 136.39% of
    outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicates the very liquidity
    shortages of the bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 16.65%
    which indicates an increase in the liquidity shortage of the bank leading to a further
    deterioration.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 5653.23 crores in Over 3 months – 6
    months time buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative
    360.33% of outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the high
    liquidity shortage of the bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative
    5.56%, which clearly indicates the improvement in the liquidity structure of the bank
    compared to previous time bucket.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 26605 crores in over 6 months – 1 year
    time buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 189.31% of
    outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the very high
    liquidity shortage of the bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative
    26.18 % which clearly indicates the fine tuning of liquidity risk management tin this
    time buckets.
    It can be concluded that the liquidity profile of the bank as on 31.03.2013
    highlights the serious liquidity problems. Cumulative gap as a percentage of outflows
    as measured are over and above RBI Limit prescribed, it means the bank has serious
    liquidity shortage.
    60000

    40000

    20000
    Rs. in Crores

    0

    -20000

    -40000

    -60000

    -80000 29 Days Over 6
    2 to 7 8 to 14 15 to28 Over 3 to 1 to 3 3 to 5 Over 5
    1 Day to 3 Months
    Days Days Days 6 Months years years years
    Months to 1 Year
    Risk Sensitive Assets 470.06 560.03 450.25 1,007.81 3,952.47 3,681.31 5,215.05 47,720.10 15,567.66 23,343.94
    Risk Sensitive Liabilities 1070.27 8163.12 1856.94 2,456.53 20,515.52 9,334.54 31,820.05 7,386.31 20,195.23 1,168.25
    Liquidity Gap -600.21 -7603.09 -1406.69 -1,448.68 -16,923.05 -5,653.23 -26,605 40,333.79 -4,627.57 22,175.69
    Cumulative Liquidity Gap -600.21 -8203.3 -9609.99 -11,058.67 -27,981.72 -33,634.95 -60,239.95 -19,906.16 -24,533.73 -2358.04

    Maturity Patterns
    Risk Sensitive Assets Risk Sensitive Liabilities Liquidity Gap Cumulative Liquidity Gap

    Graph 5 Liquidity risk profile statement as on 31-03-2013

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 12 editor@iaeme.com

  13. An Empirical Examination of Liquidity Risk Management with Special Reference to Vijaya
    Bank

    Table 6 Liquidity risk profile statement as on 31-03-2014

    Gap
    Cumulative
    Risk Risk Cumulative As a
    Maturity Liquidity Gap As a RBI
    Sensitive Sensitive Liquidity % of
    patterns Gap % of Limit
    Assets Liabilities Gap Total
    Outflow
    Assets
    1 Day 1072.08 1554.25 -482.17 -482.17 -31 20% -0.38
    2 to 7
    2722.86 6591.07 -3868.21 -4350.38 -66 20% -3.1
    Days
    8 to 14
    834.3 2346.29 -1511.99 -5862.37 -249.86 20% -1.21
    Days
    15 to 28
    2,012.39 3,784.09 -1,771.7 -7634.07 -201.74 20% -1.41
    Days
    29 Days
    to 3 7,393.49 26,292.27 -18,898.78 -26532.85 -100.92 20% -15.11
    Months
    Over 3 to
    5,297.5 11,103.95 -5,806.45 -32339.3 -291.24 20% -6.80
    6 Months
    Over 6
    Months to 7,290.39 44,197.93 -36,907.54 -69246.84 -156.67 30% -35.35
    1 Year
    1 to 3
    50,628.29 9,884.52 40,743.77 -28503.07 -288.36 32.59
    years Internal
    3 to 5 Prudential
    9,513.18 22,820.69 -13,307.51 -41810.58 -183.21 -10.64
    years Limits of
    Over 5 the Bank
    28,250.82 1,391.78 26,859.04 -14951.54 -1074.27 21.48
    years
    Total 1,25,015.3 1,29,966.84
    Source: Annual Reports
    The table:6 presents liquidity risk profile of the bank as on March 31,2014.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 482.17 crores in 1 day time bucket. The
    cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 482.17% of outflows, against
    the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the liquidity shortage of the Vijaya
    Bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative -0.38% which indicates the
    need for effective control of the liquidity position of the bank for the bank’s
    betterment.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 3868.21 crores in 2-7 days time buckets.
    The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 66% of outflows, against
    the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the continued liquidity shortage of the
    bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 3.1% which indicates the
    need for innovative techniques to control and overcome the liquidity shortage of the
    bank.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 1511.99 crores in 8-14 days time
    buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 249.86% of
    outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the serious liquidity
    shortage of the bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 1.21 %
    which indicates that there is some sort of improvement in the performance compared
    to the previous time bucket.

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 13 editor@iaeme.com

  14. Dr. Shivakumar Deene

    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs.1771.7 crores in 15-28 days time buckets.
    The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 201.74% of outflows,
    against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the red alarm for effective
    liquidity risk management. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative 1.41%
    which indicates that compared to previous time buckets the present performance is
    deteriorating.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs.18898.78 crores in 29 days to 3 months
    time buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 100.92 % of
    outflows, is indicating the liquidity shortage of the bank. The gap as a percentage of
    total assets is a negative 15.11% which says that risk of liquidity has risen further and
    the bank has to do something to control this liquidity shortage of the bank so as to run
    the show without any trouble.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 5806.45 crores in over 3 months to 6
    months time buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative
    291.24% of outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 20%, is indicating the
    liquidity shortage of the bank. The gap as a percentage of total assets is a negative
    6.80 % which again pinpoints the continued high liquidity shortage of the bank and
    the need for some value addition measures to overcome the same.
    The liquidity gap which is a negative Rs. 36907.54 crores in over 6 months to 1
    year time buckets. The cumulative liquidity gap, which constitutes a negative 156.67
    % of outflows, against the RBI norms of a negative 30% is signaling the risky
    liquidity shortage picture of the bank.
    It can be concluded that the liquidity profile of the bank as on 31.03.2014
    highlights the serious liquidity problems. Cumulative gap as a percentage of outflows
    as measured are over and above RBI Limit prescribed, it means the bank has serious
    liquidity shortage.
    60000

    40000

    20000
    Rs. in Crores

    0

    -20000

    -40000

    -60000

    -80000 29 Days Over 6
    2 to 7 8 to 14 15 to 28 Over 3 to 1 to 3 3 to 5 Over 5
    1 Day to 3 Months
    Days Days Days 6 Months years years years
    Months to 1 Year
    Risk Sensitive Assets 1072.08 2722.86 834.3 2,012.39 7,393.49 5,297.50 7,290.39 50,628.29 9,513.18 28,250.82
    Risk Sensitive Liabilities 1554.25 6591.07 2346.29 3,784.09 26,292.27 11,103.95 44,197.93 9,884.52 22,820.69 1,391.78
    Liquidity Gap -482.17 -3868.21 -1511.99 -1,771.70 -18,898.78 -5,806.45 -36,907.54 40,743.77 -13,307.51 26,859.04
    Cumulative Liquidity Gap -482.17 -4350.38 -5862.37 -7634.07 -26532.85 -32339.3 -69246.84 -28503.07 -41810.58 -14951.54

    Maturity Patterns
    Risk Sensitive Assets Risk Sensitive Liabilities Liquidity Gap Cumulative Liquidity Gap

    Graph 6 Liquidity risk profile statement as on 31-03-2014

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 14 editor@iaeme.com

  15. An Empirical Examination of Liquidity Risk Management with Special Reference to Vijaya
    Bank

    Table 7 Liquidity risk assessment – cumulative gap (percentage of total assets)

    29 days Over 3 6 Over
    1 2-7 8-14 15-28 1 -3 3 -5
    Year -3 to 6 months 5
    day days days days years years
    months months -1 year years
    2010 1.50 -.31 -2.86 -5.66 -12.16 -23.23 -44.43 -37.38 -15.38 -37.21
    2011 -.39 -2.90 -6.29 -11.18 -24.62 -24.09 -34.99 -27.98 0.92 21.42
    2012 -.38 -6.27 -7.44 -9.79 -17.91 -21.8 -48.34 -18.60 -23.33 -1.94
    2013 -.58 -8.04 -9.42 -92.29 -27.44 -32.98 -59.07 -19.52 -24.06 -2.31
    2014 -.35 -3.17 -4.27 -5.56 -19.32 -23.54 -50.41 -20.75 -30.44 -10.88
    Source: Annual Reports
    The Table No.7 presents an analysis of liquidity risk assessment analysis
    calculating cumulative GAP of liquidity as a percentage of total assets of sample unit
    during the period of the study. The analysis is carried out by taking in to consideration
    of maturity patterns of risk sensitive assets and risk sensitive liabilities in various in
    various time buckets as per the data available in the annual reports of the bank during
    the period of the study.
    As per the RBI guidelines, while the mismatches up to one year would be relevant
    since these provide early warning signals, the main focus should be on the short-term
    mismatches, i.e., 1-4 days and 15 to 28 days.
    The mismatches for the different time buckets have clearly documented a fact that
    for a period upto one year the gap was negative, but the bank tried it’s hard to control
    the gap somehow. It is because of this only, though the gap was negative but it was
    improving the performance over a time buckets except for the time buckets of 6
    months to 1 year which has shown continuous increase in the gap during the period
    under study.
    40

    20

    0

    -20
    Percentage

    -40

    -60

    -80

    -100 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
    1 day 1.5 -0.39 -0.38 -0.58 -0.35
    2-7 days -0.31 -2.9 -6.27 -8.04 -3.17
    8-14 days -2.86 -6.29 -7.44 -9.42 -4.27
    15-28 days -5.66 -11.18 -9.79 -92.29 -5.56
    29 days -3 months -12.16 -24.62 -17.91 -27.44 -19.32
    Over 3 to 6 months -23.23 -24.09 -21.8 -32.98 -23.54
    6 months -1 year -44.43 -34.99 -48.34 -59.07 -50.41
    1 – 3 years -37.38 -27.98 -18.6 -19.52 -20.75
    3 – 5 years -15.38 0.92 -23.33 -24.06 -30.44
    Over 5 years -37.21 21.42 -1.94 -2.31 -10.88

    Graph 7 Liquidity risk assessment – cumulative gap (percentage of total assets)

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 15 editor@iaeme.com

  16. Dr. Shivakumar Deene

    Table 8 Statement of structural liquidity-gap average and cumulative gap average (2010 to
    2014)
    Gap Average (Rs. in Cumulative Gap average (Rs.
    Time Bucket
    Crores) in Crores)
    1 Day -142.13 -142.13
    2 -7 Days -2632.22 -2774.35
    8-14 Days -1719.35 -4493.7
    15-28 Days -2,283.82 -8,160.63
    29-Days -3 Months -11,831.91 -19,992.54
    3-6 Months -4508.66 -24501.2
    6 Months -1 year -22,542.33 -47043.53
    1-3 Years 24,050.06 -22993.47
    3-5 Years 3319.83 -19673.64
    Over 5 Years 24,556.03 4882.39
    Source: Annual Reports
    The Table No.8 presents average gap and average cumulative gap during the
    period of the study in various time buckets.
    This analysis is carried out by taking in to consideration of gap and cumulative
    gap of maturity patterns of risk sensitive assets and risk sensitive liabilities in various
    time buckets as per the data available in the annual reports of the bank during the
    period of the study.
    The average mismatch in 1 day time bucket is a negative 142.13 crores, it was
    negative Rs. 2632.22 crores in 2-7days time buckets, negative Rs.1719.35 crores in 8-
    14 days time buckets, negative Rs.2283.82 crores in 15-28 days time buckets,
    negative Rs.11831.91 crores in 29 days to 3 months time buckets, negative
    Rs.4508.66 crores in 3-6 months time buckets, negative Rs. 22542.33 crores in 6
    months to 1 year time buckets. Whereas the average cumulative gap in the
    corresponding time buckets are negative Rs.142.13 crores, negative Rs.2774.35
    crores, negative Rs.4493.7 crores, negative Rs.8160.63 crores, negative Rs.19992.54
    crores, negative Rs.24501.2 crores and negative Rs.47043.53 crores respectively.

    9. SUGGESTIONS
    The following suggestions are offered to the sample unit for effectively managing its
    markets risk i.e. liquidity risk and interest rate risk.

    9.1. Management of Liquidity Risk
    The following suggestions are offered for considering in the liquidity risk
    management of the bank.
    1. The bank has to fix cap on inter-bank borrowings, especially call borrowings;
    2. To fix limits in terms of purchased funds vis-a vis liquid assets;
    3. To fix the variances between core deposits vis-à-vis core assets i.e. cash reserve ratio,
    liquidity reserve ratio and loans;
    4. To fix duration of liabilities and investment portfolio;
    5. Bank should fix cumulative mismatches across all time bands;

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 16 editor@iaeme.com

  17. An Empirical Examination of Liquidity Risk Management with Special Reference to Vijaya
    Bank

    6. Commitment ratio- To track the total commitments given to corporate/ banks and
    other financial institutions to limit the off-balance sheet exposure;
    7. Swapped funds ratio, i.e. extent of Indian rupees raised out of foreign currency
    sources.
    It should also evolve a system for monitoring high value deposits (other than
    inter-bank deposits) of Rs.1 crore or more to track the volatile liabilities. Further cash
    flows arising out of contingent liabilities in normal situation and the scope for an
    increase in cash flows during the periods of stress should also be estimated.
    30000

    20000

    10000

    0
    Rs. in Crores

    -10000

    -20000

    -30000

    -40000

    -50000

    -60000 29-Days 6
    2 -7 8-14 15-28 3-6 Over 5
    1 Day -3 Months 1-3 Years 3-5 Years
    Days Days Days Months Years
    Months -1 year
    Gap Average (Rs. in Crores) -142.13 -2632.22 -1719.35 -2,283.82 -11,831.91 -4508.66 -22,542.33 24,050.06 3319.83 24,556.03
    Cumulative Gap average
    (Rs. in Crores) -142.13 -2774.35 -4493.7 -8,160.63 -19,992.54 -24501.2 -47043.53 -22993.47 -19673.64 4882.39

    Time Bucket
    Gap Average (Rs. in Crores) Cumulative Gap average (Rs. in Crores)

    Graph 8 Statement of structural liquidity –gap average and cumulative gap average (2010 to
    2014)
    The liquidity profile of the bank could be analyzed on a static basis, wherein the
    assets and liabilities and off-balance sheet items are pegged on a particular day and
    the behavioural pattern and the sensitivity of these items to change in market interest
    rates and environment are duly accounted for. It is further advised to estimate the
    liquidity profile on a dynamic way is giving due importance to:
    1. Seasonal pattern of deposits/ loans;
    2. Potential liquidity needs for meeting new loan demands, un availed credit limits, loan
    policy, potential deposit losses, investment obligations, statutory obligations etc.
    3. The liquidity profile of the bank depends on the market conditions, which influence
    the cash flow behaviour. Thus, banks should evaluate liquidity profile under different
    conditions, viz., normal situation, bank specific crisis and market crisis scenario. The
    banks should establish benchmark for normal situation; cash flow profile of on/off
    balance sheet items and manages net funding requirements.
    Apart from managing liquidity on a day-to-day basis, as per RBI requirements, it
    is required to produce a Contingency Funding Plan (CFP) to manage stress scenarios
    and withstand prolonged adverse liquidity crises. Action plans based on the CFP must
    be established by the ALCO to address the situation arising out of the stress situatio n.

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 17 editor@iaeme.com

  18. Dr. Shivakumar Deene

    REFERENCES
    [1] Mohan, Rakesh. (2007), “Reforms, Productivity and Efficiency in Banking: The
    Indian Experience”, Economic Development in India, Vol. 101, pp.65-95.
    [2] Srivastava, R.M. and Divya Nigam, “Management of Indian Financial
    Institutions”, Himalaya Publishing House, 2008, pp.385 – 398.
    [3] Madan; Mohan. (2007) “Asset liabilities management in commercial banks in
    India”, Department of Commerce, Kurukshetra University.
    [4] Mishra, Dwarakarath. (2007) “Performance appraisal of Commercial banks in
    India during post liberalization period”, Department of Commerce, Utkal
    University
    [5] Sen, Mitali. (2007) “Determinants of liability structure: A study of the Inc
    Commercial Banks”, Department of Management, Indian School of Mines.
    [6] Sinha, Rajendra Kumar. (2007). “Asset liabilities l1anagement in bank: India”,
    Department of Management, Aligarh Muslim University.
    [7] Anjum, Bimal. (2007), “Productivity in the Indian banking industry: A study
    public sector banks”, Department of Commerce, Kurukshetra University.
    [8] Dasgupta Chandan. (2008). “A Study of the need for an integrated in
    management system in Indian banks”. Department of Management
    Hemachandracharya North Gujarat University.
    [9] Aggarwal Shalini (2008), “An evaluation of risk management practices banking
    sector in India”, Department of Management, Kurukshetra University.
    [10] Verma, Richa. (2008), “Risk management practices among banks in India: An
    Empirical study”, Department of Management, Guru Jambhesvar University of
    Science &Technology.
    [11] Rajagopal, C.S. (2008), “Asset-liability management in commercial; banks
    India”, Department of Commerce, Karnataka University.
    [12] Rao, K. Nageshwara (2008), “Performance appraisal of public sector banking in
    India during reforms era”, Department of Commerce, Andhra University.
    [13] Govt. of India & Reserve Bank of India (2009), “India’s Financial Sector
    assessment”, Committee on Financial Sector Assessment, March 2009.
    [14] Pat, K.A. (2009). “Why Indian Banks are healthy in this global crisis Economic
    and Political Weekly, Vol.XLIV No.17, April 25, 2009, pp.21-22.
    [15] Chandrasekhar, C.P. (2009), “How sound is Indian Banking”, Economic and
    Political Weekly, Vol.XLIV No.19, May 9,2009, pp. 8-9.
    [16] Saluja, Jyothi and Dr. Rajinder Kaur (2010), Profitability Performance Public
    Sector Banks in India”, Indian Journal of Finance, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2010.
    [17] Dr. C. Mahadeva Murthy and Prof. S. N. Pathi. Risk Management in Banking: A
    Study with Reference to State Bank of India (SBI) and Associates. International
    Journal of Management, 4(4), 2013, pp. 119-130.

    http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 18 editor@iaeme.com

Download tài liệu An empirical examination of liquidity risk management with special reference to Vijaya bank File Word, PDF về máy